Welcome to an Engaged Community

There's a better way to personalize your website experience. With myConnection, the profile you create allows you to set up a unique starting point for the tasks and transactions that you want to complete in your time on this website. Use myConnection to gather the information that you most care about from across this website into one central location, giving you greater control over how you connect with your community.

A.Hold a public hearing and
take action onHDC08-44R
(Green), a request for a
certificate of appropriateness to construct a privacy fence on approximately 0.2 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC” (Single-family Residential with a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay), legally described as Lot 1 and the northeastern half
of Lot 2, Block 13 of the League City Townsites Subdivision, generally
located south of 4th Street and west of Wisconsin Avenue with the
approximate address being 1023 4th Street.

IV.New Business

A.Consider and take action on HDC09-05
(Quality of Care), a request to waive the sign requirements for a
Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025
East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

B.Consider and take action on HDC09-05
(Quality of Care), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a
sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

V.Other Business

A.Consider and take action on
an electronic distribution of Historic District Commission packets.

VI.Commissioner’s
Comments

Commissioner Dudney

1.Status of the HD Architectural
Design and Materials List being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.

2.Identification of the Historic
District along the Main Street Corridor.

VII.Adjournment of the
Meeting

CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO
CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE OF MEETING WAS POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARD AT
CITY HALL OF THE CITY OF LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS, BY THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 2009,
AT 12 PM, AND WAS P0STED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 551, LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT). ITEMS POSTED IN THE OPEN SESSION
PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA MAY ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED OR EXECUTIVE SESSION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

__________________________________________

LASHONDRA HOLMES,
AICP

PLANNING MANAGER

MINUTES

CITY OF LEAGUE CITY

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers

200 WEST WALKER

******************************************************************

VIII.Call to order and Roll
call of members

Ms.
Hall called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.

Members present:Members
absent:

Madeline
Hall, Chair David
Hoffman (Ex-Officio Architect)

Fay
Dudney Marie Sesher

Sandra
Christiansen Peter
Guglielmo

Dennis
Ruhl

City Representatives:

Mark
Linenschmidt, Senior Planner

Rodney
Glasper, Planner

Susan
Wologo, Recording Secretary

IX.Approval of Minutes

A. February 19, 2009

Ms.Dudneymade a motion to approve the
minutes of February 19, 2009.

Ms. Christiansen seconded the
motion.

No discussion was held.

The motion passed with a vote
of 3-0-0 with Mr. Ruhl abstaining as he was not appointed.

X.Public Hearings

A.Hold a public hearing and
take action on HDC08-44R
(Green), a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a privacy
fence on approximately 0.2 acres zoned “RSF-7-RNC” (Single-family Residential with a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet with a Residential Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay), legally described as Lot 1 and the northeastern half of
Lot 2, Block 13 of the League City Townsites Subdivision, generally
located south of 4th Street and west of Wisconsin Avenue with the
approximate address being 1023 4th Street.

Mr.
Glasper restated the staff report for this item and explained that the
applicant’s request is that the Commission would reconsider the height of a
privacy fence from the approved height of 5-feet to permit a height of 6.5-feet.
Mr. Glasper gave a brief history of the project and explained that on September
25, 2008 the Commission granted approval of the construction of the fence with
the condition that the fence would not exceed 5-feet in height. The applicant constructed
the fence at 6.5-feet after receiving approval from Mr. Moses, a neighbor who
was in opposition of the fence at the September 25th meeting. Mr.
Glasper explained that the Planning Department was notified by Code Enforcement
who informed them that the fence did not conform to the agreed upon height of
the fence. Mr. Glasper advised that the Planning Department contacted the
applicant and informed him that the height of the fence did not conform to the height
agreed upon at the September 25th meeting. After further research
the Planning Department discovered and then informed the applicant that
backyard fences may be constructed to a height of 6-7 feet and there is nothing
within the Architectural Guidelines that would limit a privacy fence to a
height of 5-feet.

Ms.
Christiansen questioned why notes supporting the Commission’s decision to
restrict the fence height to 5-feet were not included in the packet. Mr.
Glasper advised that the minutes from the September 25th meeting
were not included in the packet but are available online.

The
Commission questioned why the applicant constructed the fence to 6.5-feet after
receiving approval to construct the fence no higher than 5-feet.

Ms.
Hall opened the public portion of the hearing at 6:15 p.m.

Mr.
Mike Green, applicant, came forward to explain his position on the constructed
height of the fence pointing out the heavy traffic and noise along Wisconsin Street. He distributed a photograph and drawing of the property to illustrate that
the height elevation of Wisconsin Street is almost two feet higher than the
yard. He further explained his reason for constructing the fence at 6.5-feet
and stated that he and neighbor Mr. Moses, who had initially opposed the fence,
had a conversation in which Mr. Moses gave approval of the fence. Mr. Green
stated he misunderstood by assuming that if Mr. Moses no longer was in
opposition of the fence he could proceed in constructing the fence. He further
stated, however, the fence does meet the suggested standards of the
Architectural Guidelines.

With
no one else present from the public to speak, Ms. Hall closed the public
portion of the hearing at 6:29 p.m.

A
discussion was held regarding modifying and implementing fence height standards
within the Main Street Plan.

Ms.
Christiansen made a motion that the Commission reconsider the height of the
privacy fence from the approved 5-feet to permit 6.5-feet for the property
located at 1023 4th Street.

Mr.
Ruhl seconded the motion.

No
discussion was held.

The
motion passed with a vote of 3-1-0 with Ms. Dudney voting to deny.

XI.New Business

A.Consider and take action on
HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request to waive the sign requirements for a
Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit for a monument sign at 1025
East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

Mr.
Glasper restated the staff report for this item.

Ms.
Keisha Robinson, applicant, came forward and reminded the Commission that she
came before them back in October requesting an Operations Permit for her
business. She gave a brief description of the business stating it is a day
habilitation facility providing services to individuals with developmental
disabilities and individuals with mental retardation and special needs. Ms.
Robinson explained her request for the additional verbiage on the sign is due
to the importance of the wording needed to indicate the business is an HCS
provider and day habilitation center. She stated it is not an attempt to
advertise since all of her clients come from the Texas Department of Aging and
Disability and from the Texas Department of Rehabilitation Services.

The
Commission discussed with the applicant various signage options. Mr. Ruhl
stressed the importance of including the address on the sign.

Ms.
Dudney made a motion to deny HDC09-05 (Quality of Care),a request to
waive the sign requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign
permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

Ms.
Christiansen seconded the motion.

In
a discussion Mr. Glasper recalled a previous applicant whose sign request for
additional verbiage was denied by the Commission, but upon going to the Building
Department and changing the name of his business on his Operations Permit to
include the additional verbiage, he was able to include it on his sign. The
Commission agreed to this as a possible option for Ms. Robinson.

The
motion to deny HDC09-05 (Quality of Care) passed with a vote of 4-0-0.

B.Consider and take action on
HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness of a
sign permit for a monument sign at 1025 East Main Street, Suite 102 and 103.

Ms.
Dudney made a motion to approve HDC09-05 (Quality of Care), a request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness of a sign permit with the condition that the
applicant comply with the Scenic Byways Ordinance and redesign the proposed sign
to include the Commission’s recommendations and to be Administratively
Approved.

A.Consider and take action on an
electronic distribution of Historic District Commission packets.

Mr.
Linenschmidt introduced the possibility of electronic distribution of the
Historic District Commission meeting packets. He provided an overhead example
and stated the idea is to go toward “paperless” which would save money as well
as time since delivering them electronically would expedite delivery time. He
stated the Commission would receive an agenda by email with links that would
then pull up the attachments. The Commission discussed the advantages and
disadvantages of electronic distribution.

Ms.
Dudney made a motion to table this item to be discussed at the next meeting.

Ms.
Christiansen seconded the motion.

The
motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0.

XIII.Commissioner’s Comments

Commissioner Dudney

1.Status of the HD Architectural
Design and Materials List being incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.

2.Identification of the Historic
District along the Main Street Corridor.

Ms. Dudney requested to postpone
her comments to a later date.

XIV.Adjournment of the Meeting

Mr. Ruhl made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Christiansen seconded the motion.

Ms. Hall adjourned the meeting at 7:14
p.m.

___________________________________ ______________________________

Mark Linenschmidt, Senior Planner Madeline Hall, Chair

Date minutes approved: ___________________

City of League City
300 W. Walker
League City, TX 77573
Ph: 281-554-1000